ReRyRo

7th Feb 2023

The Terminator (1984)

Corrected entry: Reese relays a message to Connor from her son, supposedly verbatim - Reese says John made him memorize it: Thank you, Sarah, for your courage..." John wanted Reese to give the message verbatim - that's why he made Reese memorize it - so John would have said, "Thank you, mom", not "Sarah."

ReRyRo

Correction: Not necessarily. He was an adult, in a ravaged future with the survival of the human species at stake. It's not improbable that he used the more formal/cold "Sarah", rather than "Mom."

kayelbe

Correction: This is an assumption of how a character should act and not a mistake. Not all people address their mother as "mom." Many address them by their name. I personally have used my parents' names when talking about them to another person. Not to mention Sarah had raised John to be a warrior and the resistance leader, which could have changed the mother/son relationship.

Bishop73

Corrected entry: It becomes quite obvious as the movie progresses that the aliens want to capture and use (or digest) humans, so it defies logic that the first one to appear immediately starts vaporizing every human in sight. Since the people posed no threat, the only reason to vaporize them would be if the aliens simply wanted to be rid of them - which they obviously didn't. So this initial vaporization was simply a manufactured plot device by the movie makers.

ReRyRo

Correction: There are plenty of humans to go around. They don't need all of them. What they first wanted to do is collapse human society. That usually works if you start killing indiscriminately.

lionhead

Maybe they needed 20 billion people. So we don't know that there "are plenty to go around." And again, the people they vaporized were no threat. And they didn't need to "collapse human society" (and you have no way of knowing what they "wanted" to do); they merely needed to remove threats. So, again, it defies logic to unnecessarily vaporize what's later shown to be desirable to them, if not required by them.

ReRyRo

You don't know what the wanted to do either. Seeing them kill so many people, logically shows that they don't need all those people.

lionhead

Maybe they didn't need 20 billion people. Maybe they didn't have the "human harvesting" equipment ready. Maybe they just felt like it. Who knows. Either way, I'm not sure we can't apply our concepts of logic to an alien race.

You might try reading the original novel. While I don't disagree that it defies logic, the fact is that the only person that could address the why of this was H.G. Wells. While the filmmakers changed a number of details to base the story in the present (2005), in the U.S., from a family's point of view, the tripods being buried...the basic story itself, on the aliens illogically torching lots of humans before they began harvesting them, is pretty much the same as in the novel.

Correction: Doesn't defy logic in the slightest. It seemed pretty obvious to me that the initial "invasion" (vaporizing every human in sight and starting battles) was to disrupt and take control of the human population. Thus making it easier to harvest human blood/tissue from the remaining population. (Which, from my memory at least, were implied to basically be used to fertilize their terraforming efforts/the red weed.) If you wanna take somewhere over, you can't just wander in and say "Ok, this is MINE now!" That's not how war works. You have to show force, assert dominance and then get rid of any possible opposition.

TedStixon

Correction: "So this initial vaporization was simply a manufactured plot device by the movie makers." This 'manufactured plot device' was written by Herbert George Wells, 110 years before the 2005 movie. While there are differences between the original novel and the 2005 movie, there are a number of similarities. One identical plot detail being that the aliens' tripods started by incinerating countless humans before harvesting them to fertilize the red weed. I can't recall if the novel explained why.

Corrected entry: Nothing in space could communicate with whales in the ocean without radios. It wouldn't matter if it was generating the loudest sound in the universe, or had the most sensitive mike and most powerful amplifier - sound can't travel through a vacuum. The probe couldn't "hear" the whales, and the whales couldn't hear the probe.

ReRyRo

Correction: This assumes that the probe, which does not appear to be a 'mechanical' device, uses a communications technology that we are familiar with, and there's no reason to assume that it does. It's a fictional, alien probe, which is likely using a fictional, alien technology to communicate with the whales.

wizard_of_gore

You're describing fantasy fiction and not science fiction. The whales are not equipped with alien technology to send and receive, so it doesn't matter what technology the probe contains The movie makes a point of "playing" the sounds of whales and the sounds of the probe. Sounds, by definition, are vibrations of a medium - there is no medium here to carry the vibrations, and even if there were, they would have to be so powerful as to cause worldwide, catastrophic shock waves in order to reach.

ReRyRo

Star Trek does often dabble in fantasy under the guise of "too advanced for our puny minds." The probe's signal is not itself a sound but some kind of energy (or something) that can inexplicably drain power from starships, cause giant hurricanes, and produce a sound when it hits a medium. The probe presumably has sensors that can detect the effects of a whale call and extrapolate/ "hear" it much the way the Enterprise bridge screen can "see" across vast distances using sensor data.

TonyPH

Corrected entry: In the scene in the Jeep when Garlick announces to the passing troops that Cronauer is in their midsts and Adrian does his riff, after the convoy starts moving again, more than a dozen trucks go by with all the troops grinning broadly and giving Cronauer "kudos," even though the majority of them couldn't possibly have heard or seen his Jeep "performance," and wouldn't even know who he was.

ReRyRo

Correction: Or someone spread the word via either CB, Grapevine-telephoned it down the line, or ran the news? Ask any soldier, they'll tell you how highly the entertainers are valued, how hard they'd listen, how fast the news would spread.

dizzyd

The "correction" is mere conjecture, not based on any evidence from the movie itself, but rather simply an opinion of how the plot could have been written and portrayed. I wrote up the actual scene as it played out on the screen as a mistake because without any supporting evidence from the movie makers this scene is a mistake. If one was to invent potential back stories for each scene in a movie then just about any mistake could be explained away as intentional, depending on the extent of one's imagination. But it wouldn't be a commentary on the movie.

ReRyRo

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.